"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins is somewhat agnostic about the existence of God ... and he has admitted that he doesn't have any specific evidence for W2M Evolution (or if he has ... he hasn't written it in his books) ... so his Agnosticism seems to be growing!!!:):D

... and I admire him for that.

Stop being disingenuous! You're annoying at this point and should be banned if it continues.

He's agnostic about the existence of God, but doesn't believe that there is a God. In the same way, he's agnostic about the existence of fairies. He has explained this in great detail.

Also, he has published a vast array of evidence for evolution. His first books described the process of evolution, while the newer title - The Greatest Show on Earth discussed the evidence to demonstrate that Evolution is true. This was in response to Jerry Coyne's book 'Why Evolution is True' - Where Dawkins was asked why another book on evolution.

He presents the evidence quite clearly in the latter book. Now if you weren't being such a disingenuous, lying, ignorant child - you'd know that.

Try reading his books instead of selectively quoting some of his stuff out of context. Then you won't look like an ignorant, immature brat.

koth wrote: »

by whom?

By any objective observer.

J C wrote: »

By any objective observer.

but that doesn't back up your assertion that creationism has been found to be valid on this thread. to claim it has been is dishonest.

dlofnep wrote: »

Stop being disingenuous! You're annoying at this point and should be banned if it continues.

I just point out the facts ... if they annoy you ... just tickle yourself ... and realise that there are many much more serious issues than the degree (one way or the other) of Prof Dawkins' agnosticism!!!:)

dlofnep wrote: »

He's agnostic about the existence of God, but doesn't believe that there is a God. In the same way, he's agnostic about the existence of fairies. He has explained this in great detail.

He has.

dlofnep wrote: »

Also, he has published a vast array of evidence for evolution. His first books described the process of evolution, while the newer title - The Greatest Show on Earth discussed the evidence to demonstrate that Evolution is true. This was in response to Jerry Coyne's book 'Why Evolution is True' - Where Dawkins was asked why another book on evolution.

He presents the evidence quite clearly in the latter book. Now if you weren't being such a disingenuous, lying, ignorant child - you'd know that.

Try reading his books instead of selectively quoting some of his stuff out of context. Then you won't look like an ignorant, immature brat.

I think that he needs to write another book entitled something like 'Unambiguous Evidence for the Evolution of Microbes into Men'.

... and my wife tells me that I'm not immature or a brat ... and my lack of ignorance speaks for itself:):D

J C wrote: »

I think that he needs to write another book entitled something like 'Unambiguous Evidence for the Evolution of Microbes into Men'.

No, because any rational person will be already convinced with the compelling evidence he has already provided. No matter what he writes - lunatic, cult creationists will reject his claims because their mind will never be open for science that contradicts the bible.

shizz

dlofnep wrote: »

No, because any rational person will be already convinced with the compelling evidence he has already provided. No matter what he writes - lunatic, cult creationists will reject his claims because their mind will never be open for science that contradicts the bible.

I really do find it astonishing how people can cling on to the telling of an ancient text, written by barbarians who had much less moral standards than our own.

Not only this, but they put it miles ahead of modern scientific findings which have been peer reviewed and scrutinized beyond belief. A text which was written by people who heard stories that were past down by word of mouth. These stories often contradict each other. Its baffling.

No doubt J.C. Won't agree with this but it's true.

It may be a bit over the top but I really feel like our species and civilisation is doomed unless we can get rid of this superstitious nonsense.

/end rant.

joseph brand

J C wrote: »

I just point out the facts

It would take a team, to trawl through this thread looking for your 'facts'. You just pop in asking for evidence. It's piled on top of you and you still say "where is it?" And yet, you provide nothing, nada, zilch.

Your beliefs are only as strong as your ignorance. I'm sure you'd love to visit Ken sHam's creationist museum/ fun park where you get to see dinosaurs and humans living side-by-side. Just like The Flintstones. They even have a small Triceratops with a saddle on it's back. ffs

TRY not to laugh.

dlofnep wrote: »

No, because any rational person will be already convinced with the compelling evidence he has already provided. No matter what he writes - lunatic, cult creationists will reject his claims because their mind will never be open for science that contradicts the bible.

Leaving aside the gratutious ad hominem comments ... your core claim of compelling evidence for W2M Evolution is simply unfounded ... as there is none, that I am aware of.

joseph brand wrote: »

It would take a team, to trawl through this thread looking for your 'facts'. You just pop in asking for evidence. It's piled on top of you and you still say "where is it?" And yet, you provide nothing, nada, zilch.

Your beliefs are only as strong as your ignorance. I'm sure you'd love to visit Ken sHam's creationist museum/ fun park where you get to see dinosaurs and humans living side-by-side. Just like The Flintstones. They even have a small Triceratops with a saddle on it's back. ffs

TRY not to laugh.

Feel free to laugh ... nervously ... it is clear that the Earth is quite 'young' ... and many extinct animals, like the Triceratops were alive contemporaneously with Man.
Even 'old agers' ... like Evolutionists, freely admit that many species alive today lived contemporaneously with Dinosaurs. They call them 'living fossils' because they haven't changed since then.
... and given the fact that it was less than 10,000 years ago, this isn't all that surprising!!!:)
... so why all the surprise that Humans also lived alongside Dinosaurs as well?

shizz

J C wrote: »

Feel free to laugh ... nervously ... it is clear that the Earth is quite 'young' ... and many extinct animals, like the Triceratops were alive contemporaneously with Man.
Even 'old agers' ... like Evolutionists freely admit that many species alive today lived contemporaneously with Dinosaurs. They call them 'living fossils' because they haven't changed since then.
... and given the fact that it was less than 10,000 years this isn't all that surprising!!!:)

It's clear that the earth is young? It's certainly young in Cosmological terms given that the age of the Universe is estimated to be 13.75 billion years, but in the thousands? Please reference the study that suggests the earth to be 10,000 years old.

Actually, I already know the response. I'm putting the fish heads away. No more feeding the troll.

Fluffybums

J C wrote: »

Feel free to laugh ... nervously ... it is clear that the Earth is quite 'young' ... and many extinct animals, like the Triceratops were alive contemporaneously with Man.
Even 'old agers' ... like Evolutionists freely admit that many species alive today lived contemporaneously with Dinosaurs. They call them'living fossils' because they haven't changed since then.
... and given the fact that it was less than 10,000 years this isn't all that surprising!!!:)

:eek::rolleyes::D;):eek::rolleyes::D:eek::rolleyes::D:rolleyes::eek::rolleyes::D:
LOL, ROL, LOL, ROL, LOL, ROL,LOL, ROL

J C wrote: »

Feel free to laugh ... nervously ... it is clear that the Earth is quite 'young'

4.5 billion years old.. Not sure where you're getting your definition for young out of.

J C wrote: »

... and many extinct animals, like the Triceratops were alive contemporaneously with Man.

Which is why homo sapiens have never once been found at the same geological layer as dinosaurs?

J C wrote: »

Even 'old agers' ... like Evolutionists freely admit that many species alive today lived contemporaneously with Dinosaurs. They call them'living fossils' because they haven't changed since then.

The crocodilia family might be as old as the dinosaurs, but no crocodile that lived alongside the dinosaurs lives today. It's descendants do. That's why you don't see guys like this anymore:

Now - we're tried to explain this to you a million times, but you just don't seem to understand it.

J C wrote: »

... and given the fact that it was less than 10,000 years this isn't all that surprising!!!:)

That is not a fact. When you're willing to demonstrate to us a testable, and repeatable, peer-reviewed dating methodology that backs up these claims - let us know and we'll see. Until then - we'll continue to laugh at you.

Galvasean

joseph brand wrote: »

Question: Did the church, or at least some of them, pull a u-turn on the topic of dinosaurs?

I thought the church's stance was that god put the bones in the ground in different hiding places for us to find. But now they say that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? Or is that just some crazy baptist/ evangelical churches?

Are these ideas mutually exclusive?

They realised kids like dinoaurs so segwayed them into their museums to maximize profit.

robindch

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins [...] admitted that he doesn't have any specific evidence for W2M Evolution (or if he has ... he hasn't written it in his books)

You will recall from your own words that Dawkins said nothing of the kind. He did not say "that he doesn't have any specific evidence" for the evolutionary origins of mankind. He did say that in none of his previous books was such specific evidence "explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap that I needed to close."

I don't expect you to read this book, or for you to understand it if you did.

But on this forum, you are expected not to lie.

Barr125

J C wrote: »

Feel free to laugh ... nervously ... it is clear that the Earth is quite 'young' ... and many extinct animals, like the Triceratops were alive contemporaneously with Man.
Even 'old agers' ... like Evolutionists, freely admit that many species alive today lived contemporaneously with Dinosaurs. They call them 'living fossils' because they haven't changed since then.
... and given the fact that it was less than 10,000 years ago, this isn't all that surprising!!!:)
... so why all the surprise that Humans also lived alongside Dinosaurs as well?

So...you're really going to stick with the Flintstones Hypothesis???

Galvasean

................ YABADABBADOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:pac::eek:

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This.
If you can't give a sensible answer to this J C you have no business commenting on this thread again.

hi doc
How did Homo sapiens become extinct? I mean, Is there any Homo sapiens around.

dead one wrote: »

hi doc
How did Homo sapiens become extinct? I mean, Is there any Homo sapiens around.

just when you think this thread has hit bottom, the floor collapses! :eek:

homo sapiens aren't extinct, homo sapiens is another name for humans.

koth wrote: »

homo sapiens aren't extinct, homo sapiens is another name for humans.

hi koth
isn't homo sapiens another name for Chimps?

dead one wrote: »

hi koth
isn't homo sapiens another name for Chimps?

no.

koth wrote: »

no.

then, where is common ancestor? Who are common ancestors

dead one wrote: »

then, where is common ancestor? Who are common ancestors

Check out these posts by dlofnep and oldrnwisr if you honestly want to know the answer to that question.

koth wrote: »

Check out these posts by dlofnep and oldrnwisr if you honestly want to know the answer to that question.

Right, i will check it, thanks, Now more questions
Will human become extinct or evolve into another forms / creatures? For more detail check this link

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Races

shizz

dead one wrote: »

hi koth
isn't homo sapiens another name for Chimps?

Really..

dead one wrote: »

then, where is common ancestor? Who are common ancestors

really..

dead one wrote: »

Right, i will check it, thanks, Now more questions
Will human become extinct or evolve into another forms / creatures? For more detail check this link

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Races

REALLY awful trolling.

shizz wrote: »

Really..
really..

REALLY awful trolling.

Hi shizz
It seems you don't have any answer, So It is trolling... Amazing

Sonics2k

Stop playing computer games dead_one.

dead one wrote: »

hi koth
isn't homo sapiens another name for Chimps?

Homo sapiens is another name for humans.

Pan Trogolodytes is another name for chimps.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Stop playing computer games dead_one.

Their chains are so deep in my soul, can't break these fetters.The Fettered believe in these games and willingly bind themselves to them.
Will human become extinct or evolve into other forms? Easy question, What does evolution say about this?

Guys you'll have to forgive dead one's questions. They just are that uneducated. I don't know what country they grew up in, but science certainly wasn't part of their education.